header-logo header-logo

17 March 2017
Issue: 7739 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU , Litigation trends
printer mail-detail

Experts “cautiously optimistic” about litigation future post-Brexit

London is likely to retain its dominance as the forum of choice post-Brexit, despite EU lobbying that exiting the EU could mark the end for UK litigation dominance.

Speaking in a New Law Journal panel debate this week, Ed Crosse, partner at Simmons and Simmons LLP and president of the London Solicitors Litigation Association, said he was optimistic but not complacent about the future.

“After an initial period of alarm among clients—and lawyers—about the Brexit effect on civil justice things have settled down. Clients choose to litigate in London for many reasons such as the quality of the judiciary, the procedures, the availability of disclosure, adverse costs orders, the integrity of the courts etc, but it’s vital that we improve certainty about the future.

“We need to be taking steps to reassure clients that they will be able to resolve their disputes as they’ve decided. Clients want to be sure that if they have an exclusive jurisdiction clause they’ll be able to enforce it widely.”

Fellow panel member Hugh Mercer QC, Essex Court Chambers and Chairman of the Bar Council’s Brexit Working Group, said it was important not to overstate how much influence Brexit would have on London as a financial centre because of the infrastructure and services, and the mass of people here who can service it. However, he emphasised that the rule of law depended on legal certainty.

“You don’t start litigation unless you’re going to be able to enforce. At the moment we have a unique situation in the world whereby we’re plugged into the EU system of enforcing judgments, the New York Convention for Arbitration and we also have reciprocal enforcement with the Commonwealth countries. Our judgments are uniquely transportable around the world and it’s important that we try to maintain that post-Brexit.”

Mercer felt that a “good agreement on jurisdiction and judgments was feasible” and was moderately optimistic that we will get one: “The Brussels Regulation in global terms is the gold standard—the status quo is the best there is and is what we should work towards.”

David Greene, senior partner at Edwin Coe LLP and consultant editor on New Law Journal quizzed the panel about what the litigation landscape will be like for practitioners and clients as Brexit becomes a reality. The Brexit master class, part of NLJ’s exclusive webinar series, is available to download here.

Issue: 7739 / Categories: Legal News , Brexit , EU , Litigation trends
printer mail-details

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Clarke Willmott—Matthew Roach

Partner joins commercial property team in Taunton office

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Farrer & Co—Richard Lane

Londstanding London firm appoints new senior partner

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Bird & Bird—Sue McLean

Commercial team in London welcomes technology specialist as partner

NEWS
What safeguards apply when trust corporations are appointed as deputy by the Court of Protection? 
Disputing parties are expected to take part in alternative dispute resolution (ADR), where this is suitable for their case. At what point, however, does refusing to participate cross the threshold of ‘unreasonable’ and attract adverse costs consequences?
When it comes to free legal advice, demand massively outweighs supply. 'Millions of people are excluded from access to justice as they don’t have anywhere to turn for free advice—or don’t know that they can ask for help,' Bhavini Bhatt, development director at the Access to Justice Foundation, writes in this week's NLJ
When an ex-couple is deciding who gets what in the divorce or civil partnership dissolution, when is it appropriate for a third party to intervene? David Burrows, NLJ columnist and solicitor advocate, considers this thorny issue in this week’s NLJ
NLJ's latest Charities Appeals Supplement has been published in this week’s issue
back-to-top-scroll